Speaking as document shepherd, I agree with Alvaro as to the placement of the normative text. Thanks, ACEE
From: Alvaro Retana <alvaro.ret...@futurewei.com> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 8:54 PM To: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>, Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-xaf...@ietf.org>, "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06: (with COMMENT) On July 30, 2019 at 11:44:20 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker (nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>) wrote: [Speaking as an author.] Mirja: Hi! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using the corresponding Local Address sub-TLV. Routers using the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] can include non-TE enabled interface addresses in their OSPF TE advertisements, and also use the same sub-TLVs to carry X-AF information, facilitating the mapping described above." I wonder if this text should use normative language (s/can/MAY/) as this is the part that actually updates RFC5786, however, I didn't check the exact wording in RFC5786... We left the Normative language in Section 3, where the actual specification is made. I don’t have a strong opinion as to whether there’s a need for it in the Introduction…so I’ll defer to the AD. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
